military spends with no limit

[Jiro]

We wouldn't need anybody else' help if we had all our resources and personnel at home running a well-organized system.

what you're telling me is equivalent to telling each person to be prepared for all disasters (or foreign invasion ) by stockpiling guns, ammos, food, gas, etc. enough for a couple months, building a bunker room, etc.

This kind of "one-man-army" mindset has always failed and it has never worked ever. Look at wildlife and our ancestors... they work in group. Together - we stay united and strong. Hence..... the NATO Alliance.... We have what they want and they have what we want. We work together. It's economical and beneficial for all.

Similarly, if we had a strong home defense system (we already do, but it could be even better, and we could make our borders more secure), who would mess with us? Also, let's remember, if we kept our war machine within our own borders and quit meddling in other people's business, nobody would have a reason to attack us anyway.

we CAN do that right now but we can't. why? bureaucratic bs. Example - Allow the private citizens to shoot on sight for any intruders on their properties. If captured by LEO or private citizens, allow the local police officers to simply return them back to country without having to call ICE to handle it - no procession, no paperwork, nothing. Just drive'em and kick'em.

 

[kokonut]

Maybe we should ask the American people if they enjoy their tax dollars going towards policing the world. Quite frankly, natural disasters and humanitarian crises in other countries are not our responsibility. Neither was bringing democracy to Iraq. Neither was overthrowing the Taliban. Sure, there's a lot of messed up regimes in the world, but let their own people rise up and correct the problems (watch how we did way back in 1776, bitches).

I'm an isolationist, which incidentally is a conservative trait.

Had we that mindset early on in late 1930s and 1940s, the Axis would've won the war without the U.S. involvement, we'd be a totally diffent govt by now or that we'd be facing an enemy totally insurmountable that would make 1776 look like a cakewalk for us in winning our independence.

 

[TWA]

Had we that mindset early on in late 1930s and 1940s, the Axis would've won the war without the U.S. involvement, we'd be a totally diffent govt by now or that we'd be facing an enemy totally insurmountable that would make 1776 look like a cakewalk for us in winning our independence.

Uh, actually, we DID have that mindset in the late 1930s. We didn't become involved in the war until we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Basic 20th century history here, dude. :roll:

If perhaps you mean the fact that we were supplying the allies with munitions and machinery well before our military involvement, well then that's another thing, but economic involvement does not equate military involvement. The fact remains that we did not show aggression until we were attacked, thus "awakening a sleeping giant." And we kicked ass. Pre-emptive strategy originated long before GWB, and it has so far caused far more problems and instability in the world than it has prevented (Latin America, Middle East, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.)